You seem to like Nokia, They agree with Moto and not Apple. Qualcomm is another. and Blackberry. Companies like Verizon didn't support Apple so much as they were against injunctions altogether for misc. infringed IP.

Yet others that were reported to be "supporting Apple" like Altera, Cisco, CME Group, Garmin, Hewlett-Packard, Logitech, Nest Labs, NETGEAR, Newegg, Rackspace Hosting, Safeway, SAS Institute, Symantec, Wal-Mart etc actually had a broader agenda in advocating for reasonable patent damages as a whole and not just FRAND-pledged. Strictly speaking they aren't really in "Apple's corner". In some other cases they'd actually be against Apple's position on appropriate damages for infringement.

I realize that deep in your heart you want this to be a pure black and white issue with Google in a black hat and Apple in white so everyone knows who the good guys are all the time and in every instance. Well this ain't a Western and the hat colors might change from episode to episode. If you don't pay attention you don't catch on.

Do you have any official positions for all those companies you listed? Because I can find statements for the ones I listed.

Nokia doesn't agree with Motorola. Nokia and Ericsson are in the middle. They don't like injunctions but see them as an option when necessary (after negotiations have failed). Motorola and Samsung see injunctions as something that should be available in all circumstances. For example, Samsung looking for an iPhone 5 ban even before it was released and before any negotiations occurred between Samsung and Apple. Or Motorla asking for insane fees from MS and getting a fraction of their demands (extortion under threat of a ban). Motorola also subscribes to the "one bullet to kill" theory in that it only takes one infringed patent to get an injunction even if it's part of a much larger standard (that theory didn't work out for them so well in the Microsoft case).

Sorry, but it is black and white. People like you would try and convince others there's more at issue here by very carefully picking and choosing which aspects of a case you'd like to report (BTW, weren't you one of the people who claimed Motorola's demands were fair and in accordance with other licensing deals they made - look how that turned out for MS - they slaughtered Motorola in court).

Certain companies have been blatantly abusing patents (and are now paying/soon will be paying) for it. Certain companies have also been blatantly using others IP and will also soon pay for it. What I really don't get is what do people like you and KD get out of trying to twist the truth around when nobody really falls for it.

Because that's what Mueller does. Mix and match Google and Motorola as often as possible to mislead readers on just who brings an action. Works too since you may have thought those briefs were in support of Google rather than the company actually involved, Motorola.Edited by Gatorguy - 8/14/13 at 4:57am

There's nothing at all odd about it. When the chance arose (courtesy of Samsung taking the issue to the ITC) to test the validity of a very weak SEP, Apple tried. They would be remiss not to test it. ITC ruled it was valid, but that it's a very very small part of a wider standard. It's not worth nearly as much as what Samsung claim.

I don't see the problem here. The parties had been continually negotiating over the payment for very minor SEP, Samsung unreasonably demanded that non-SEP IP be part of the payment. If Samsung had been fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory, they'd have had their payment long ago and the patent wouldn't have been disputed/tested.

So the argument turns back to what is fair and reasonable payment for licensing this SEP. Samsung's demands, with strings attached, are clearly not fair nor reasonable and certainly they were discriminatory.

Because that's what Mueller does. Mix and match Google and Motorola as often as possible to mislead readers on just who brings an action. Works too since you thought those briefs were in support of Google rather than the company actually involved, Motorola.

I didn't bother clicking the links, I just noticed your post contained the word "google" twice with no mention of Motorola...

at

all.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.

He chops and changes as it suits. It's always funny to see a thread full of Gatorguy's comments, you know something's touched a nerve, the paladin in him can't resist trying to fix the internet (to how he thinks it should be).

They don't get it. They don't understand a legal case about IP is rather simple, or they don't care. Their argument is about as sharp as the earth is round, an orange is round so the earth must be an orange

Gatorguy continues to try keeping Google away from Motorola! Do not allow him to spin this distorted reality. When Motorola has to get permission from Google to pursue or not pursue legal issues then it is Google that gets the credit!!

While pursuing an Bloomberg article about the upcoming ITC case, I was annoyed to read the following being stated...

“Sometimes, the money’s not enough,” said Ray Van Dyke, a technology-patent lawyer with the Van Dyke Firm in Washington. “Between Apple and Samsung, it’s about who’s going to be the top dog. You want to shut them down. This is the club. You can beat them into submission with a club and maintain your top dog status.”

This lawyer appears to be ignoring how Apple operates. Apple does not care about being Number One, Apple cares about being the best. Samsung can sell (uh, ship) as many devices it wants as long as those devices do no infringe Apple's patents. Since people want to see something other than the truth, they make up anything to spew to the press.

Later in the article, I encountered this...

“Obama may issue the reprieve again for Samsung, and if not, it will only bring up even bigger international conflict,” said Lee Sun Tae, an analyst at Seoul-based NH Investment & Securities said by phone. “Consumers no longer care about Samsung’s ‘copycat’ image any more as it has somewhat vanished, because even with the ongoing litigation, the Galaxy S sales have continued to rise.”

Of course analysts in Korea and sadly in the US, continue to spew illegal copying does not matter to consumers. The analysts' words really show how devious the analysts are when it comes to being illegal. Apple would not hesitate to compete with and lose to Samsung on a fair playing field. The competition would inspire Apple to be even more innovative moving forward. Having its innovation blatantly stolen and copied by a competitor like Samsung and having analysts tell Apple to be innovative is sickening.

The title is misleading since the ITC chose to delay announcing its ruling by a week. Apple won on non-SEPs, but I suspect Samsung will not be banned from infringing on Apple's patents. I hope my suspicion is wrong. Otherwise, Samsung and others we authorized to copy anything they want without concern of being fined for the copying.